're only $14.95! wow-a grt deal just got a whole lot better. hurry. $14.95 won't last.

tonight, more than 1300 americans killed by guns since newtown. the president meets with the nation's lawman searching for answers. also, new york's top cop, ray kelly, said the problem is not just assault weapons. it's handguns. >> i just don't see the answer being in expanding the universe of weapons and having more people with guns. >> and the voices you may not have heard. why is this small-town mayor fighting the toughest gun laws in the country. i'll ask him. and also on the program, the

former congressman who says now is the time to start talking about gun control. >> plus exit interview, is hillary getting a jump start on 2016? i'll ask steve cross. this is "piers morgan tonight." >> good evening. we'll get to our big conversation on guns in just a few moments, but we begin tonight with an ending and perhaps a beginning for hillary clinton taking her bow. she ends her tenure as secretary of state, but if it means she's going to ride off into the sunset, you don't know hillary clinton. the speculation is she'll make another run for the white house in 2016. so far, all signs are saying she probably win. but president obama called her, quote, one of the finest secretaries of state on "60 minutes" did nothing to dampens the rumors. and then there was this. >> there's no political tea leaves to be read here?

>> we don't have any tea. there's some water here, as best i can tell. this has been just the most extraordinary honor. >> and joining me now is steve cross. welcome. >> thanks, nice to be here. >> i want to thank you for getting every single interview i have been trying to get in the last two years on cnn, first of all. >> i have done well. a lot. >> let me ask you at the top, why do you think they keep coming to you, because there are two schools of thought. one is you're the most brilliant interviewer on television, and the other is that you give them a soft time. neither of which i suspect is entirely the truth. >> i think first of all, he likes "60 minutes." we have a huge audience. we have a format that suits him. it's long. we can do 12 minutes or 24 minutes. we do a good job of editing. and i have been doing these interviews with him since a few weeks before he declared his candidacy.

so i covered him during the campaign and have kept doing it in the white house. but i think it's a question of fairness. we have not -- i think he knows that we're not going to play gotcha with him. we're not going to go out of our way to make him look bad or stupid, and we'll let him answer the question. >> and what i felt watching it, and it was gripping to watch, is about half an hour long, the final cut. >> a little less. >> right, about 20 minutes. it wasn't what either of them really said. it was the body language of these two people who four years ago were ripping each other's throats out. it was very gentlemanly of you not to remind them of what they said about each other on video. you had these two gladiators who had been at complete war, suddenly expressing this kind of remarkable bon ami and long lasting friendship as if they're the best buddies in the world. you seemed as shocked as the rest of us when they put on this performance for you. >> yeah, when i first found out

they wanted to do it, i was flabbergasted. i was in london at the time interviewing maggie smith. i thought, what are we going to ask them? how are we going to do this in 30 minutes? and i think we all realized that the value of this, one of the things that the television can do and the "new york times" can't, is to capture the chemistry between the two of them. everybody knows the story, how bitter it was. everyone knows how they really didn't seem to like each other very much. so it was just fascinating, sitting there and watching them interact on the two shot, especially, where you can see the reaction to what was being said. and i thought it was the most revealing part because i had never really been quite sure about the nature of their relationship. i thought it was strictly professional. and that there were so many articles written about their staff, how they didn't get along. and i thought that they were -- they were absolutely on the same

page. and i thought very affectionate with each other. >> i agree. either they're the best actors in the world, or they were very sincere, i felt. i genuinely felt that. this is a key clip to me which may explain how they became all bonded in the end after all of the war and attrition. let's watch this. >> part of our bond is we have been through a lot of the same stuff, and part of being through the same stuff is getting whacked around in political campaigns. being criticized in the press. >> i think there's a sense of understanding that, you know, sometimes doesn't even take words because we have similar views. we have similar experiences. that i think provide a bond that may seem unlikely to some. >> i thought the great unspoken elephant in the room, steve, was bill clinton. >> absolutely. >> it wasn't just the fact they had been through similar things.

it is the fact that hillary was married to a president of the united states through an eight-year tenure, and she knows better than anyone else that barack obama will talk to, what it's like to be the president of the most important country in the world. that seems to me to be where the real bond probably came from. >> between the two of them, they lived 12 years in that house. and hillary, i think, certainly knows her way around. and you can't -- i wanted to ask another question about bill. and i think that it was pretty clear that bill and the president have not -- that he was more resistant to the marriage, the political marriage than she was. but also, i think one of the reasons that they did this was, i think the president wanted to close the relationship circle, you know, end the circle. to close the circle with the clintons. in the sense that they had been

incredibly helpful to him. particularly bill. in campaigning for him back in 2008 after hillary lost the nomination, and particularly this year when the president was involved in a really difficult race. and people wondered how much help he would get from bill clinton. and it was tremendous. i think it was one of the reasons why president obama was re-elected, that support. and i think he wanted to do everything he can to make sure that hillary gets due credit. >> i completely agree with that. it's interesting also, i think, to ask you about your assessment of the two legacies. one of hillary clinton as secretary of state. although she was very strong, very good, and had a lot of reasonable success, in the end, there was no great triumph of the type you can point to with some of her predecessors, and you were never quite sure what her theme was, perhaps, as

secretary of state, what her doctrine was. what was your assessment? >> i think she engaged. i think engagement with countries that the united states didn't have time to engage with during the bush years. and i think she went to a lot of places and flew the american flag and raised the colors in a lot of countries that had felt neglected. i think she was very involved in the issues that were interesting to her. i think she's interested in health care and health issues and the third world in particular. and also women's issues around the world. i think in the myanmar, burma, their influence there in striking up a workable relationship with the united states, a fledgling workable relationship with the united states was probably her greatest achievement. but also, the legacy is unwritten. this is the thing about the obama duration and about hillary clinton, the secretary of state.

the world is not in great shape. there are so many flash points. you have got syria, you've got all the consequences of the arab spring. you've got china. you've got russia. you've got iran. you've got israel. all of these things are unresolved. some of the policies that you'll know more about how the policies work in the next four years, but it may take a decade to find out what kind of a job they have really done. >> and is there any doubt that she'll run in 2016? >> i think there is a doubt. if she's healthy, i think she'll run. if she's feeling good and she continues to age well, i think she'll run. but, you know, that's sort of the unknown. she's 65. and i think it just depends on how she feels and whether she thinks she has the energy. not just to be president for four years but to go through the campaign that she would have to go through to maybe not get the

nomination, maybe get the nomination, but to get elected. those six years that you spend running and then governing, it takes a lot out of even somebody as young as president obama. >> and if you need any reminding of how tough the job is, look no further than barack obama, all the times you have interviewed him from start to finish, his hair has turned white. people are blaming you. >> i don't think that's the case, piers. >> steve, it's been a pleasure talking to you. it was fantastic television just to see those two sitting there, taking questions, and i salute you. well done. >> thank you, piers. >> guns are squarely at the top of president obama's agenda tonight. 38 days after the tragedy at newtown, he and vice president joe biden met with police chiefs and sheriffs in cities across the country including utah, aurora, colorado, and oak creek, wisconsin. joining me three men who were at that meeting.

charles ramsey, john edwards, and sheriff fitzgerald. welcome to you all. let me start with you, if i may, please, commissioner ramsey. what was your overview of how the meeting went? i suppose the key question is what do you collectively think can actually be achieved here? >> well, i thought it was an excellent meeting, and it went beyond just the narrow topic of assault weapons into the broader topic of gun violence in general. we talked about the magazine capacities, we talked about universal background checks. both the president and the vice president listened. they actually wanted suggestions. they're very, very serious about this. and i do think a lot can be accomplished. it's not going to be easy, but i do think a lot can be accomplished. and certainly the major city chiefs organization which i'm a member of. we stand firmly behind the

president and vice president in their efforts to bring an end to this gun violence that we experience in our cities. >> let's play a clip from the president today. this is what he had to say. >> no group is more important for us to listen to than our law enforcement officials. they're where rubber hits the road. so i welcome this opportunity to work with them, to hear their views in terms of what would make the biggest difference to prevent something like newtown or oak creek from happening again. >> you can see there, one of the things i have been hearing and hearing for the last few days is that the attempt to get a new assault weapons ban will flounder at the first hurdle because there's no political will in washington for it to happen, which just strikes me as utterly extraordinary given that the last five mass shootings in america have all involved assault rifles. is there no way that politicians can be compelled to get this through and act on behalf of the american people?

or is it true that the majority of american people don't really want one? >> from my personal perspective and what we dealt with in some of the things i have seen over 28 years in law enforcement, i personally don't think banning any weapon is going to stop the problem. i'm speaking from a position. i have been a victim of gun violence. never once did i think that person who did it, we should look at the guns. he was a felon who shouldn't have weapons. he was the person we should have looked at. there are many things in the proposals the president put forward that i think are fantastic, but it's one of the components of this entire discussion. we should discuss everything. we shouldn't be afraid to discuss everything. there are other issue. we need to look down the road. not the means to the end which are the weapons, but how these things start and where they develop and try to identify people who might be predisposed to this kind of violence. and law enforcement officers see violence all the time. it doesn't always end with guns.

i had an individual to beat a man and his mother to death with a bat and then split their throats. we need to look at the violence itself, not the tool, but the individual and hold them responsible and look at what they're doing. >> sheriff fitzgerald, there are many schools of thought about how best to tackle this, and many people agree background checks are a key part of it, more funding for mental health research and so on, but when i hear law enforcement officials like i heard from the police chief, saying basically removing guns is never going to be any part of the solution, i do slightly step back and say, surely t has to help. what we have seen since sandy hook, for example, is a huge increase in guns and ammunition with people racing to buy them. i don't see how that helps reduce gun violence. do you? >> the problem that i see that we're missing here is we have a situation that because we're talking about gun violence at the forefront, we're missing the issue that i think is really paramount throughout all of america. that's the issue of mental

health. mental health, of course, in congress, the funding that county jails have seen all across america, we're seeing reductions in funding. we're seeing programs that have been working, having real success, going by the wayside throughout america. the sheriffs in the majority of county jails, and in the county jails you look at in various counties, the majority of them, that's the largest mental health facility there is. >> gentlemen, thank you all very much. it's been a busy day for you and i know we all share one common goal, which is to reduce the number of americans killed by guns. i appreciate you joining me tonight. >> thank you. >> when we come back, new york's top cop, ray kelly, on the guns he calls public enemy number one. need a tow or lock your keys in the car, geico's emergency roadside assistance is there 24/7. oh dear, i got a flat tire. hmmm. uh... yeah, can you find a take where it's a bit more dramatic on that last line, yeah?

yeah i got it right here. someone help me!!! i have a flat tire!!! well it's good... good for me. what do you think? geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. >> announcer: you never know when, but thieves can steal your identity and turn your life upside down. >> hi. >> hi. you know, i can save you 15% today if you open up a charge card account with us. >> you just read my mind. >> announcer: just one little piece of information and they can open bogus accounts, stealing your credit, your money and ruining your reputation. that's why you need lifelock to relentlessly protect what matters most... [beeping...] helping stop crooks before your identity is attacked. and now you can have the most comprehensive identity theft protection available today... lifelock ultimate. so for protection you just can't get anywhere else, get lifelock ultimate. >> i didn't know how serious identity theft was until i lost my credit and

eventually i lost my home. >> announcer: credit monitoring is not enough, because it tells you after the fact, sometimes as much as 30 days later. with lifelock, as soon as our network spots a threat to your identity, you'll get a proactive risk alert, protecting you before you become a victim. >> identity theft was a huge, huge problem for me and it's gone away because of lifelock. >> announcer: while no one can stop all identity theft, if criminals do steal your information, lifelock will help fix it, with our $1 million service guarantee. don't wait until you become the next victim. you have so much to protect and nothing to lose when you call lifelock now to get two full months of identity theft protection risk free. that's right, 60 days risk-free. use promo code: gethelp. if you're not completely satisfied, notify lifelock and you won't pay a cent. order now and also get this shredder to keep your documents out of the wrong hands-- a $29 dollar value, free. get protected now. call the number on your screen

or go to lifelock.com to try lifelock protection risk free for a full 60 days. use promo code: gethelp. plus get this document shredder free-- but only if you act right now. call the number on your screen now! new york's top cop says he agrees with the assault weapons ban, but he believes handguns are an even bigger problem. commissioner ray kelly. commissioner, thank you for joining me. >> good to be with you. >> to me, there are a number of facets of this gun violence debate. you have hit one squarely on the head today. explain to me how you think the best way of dealing with the handgun issue could be going

forward? >> when you say the best way, obviously, you have to look at things that are possible. i think we need legislation. and probably the most realistic legislation that we can hope for is a universal background check. i think even that may be heavy lifting in congress. but there is this huge gaping hole in the system where about 40% of guns that we see, that are on the street, are coming in some way, shape, or form through the gun show loophole, which means basically that private sales are taking place and they're not recorded. again, there is no easy answer to this problem. we know that for a long time to come, we're going to face the problem of illegal guns on the streets of new york and other major cities. >> do you see any reason why you need to have assault rifles in civilian hands generally?

>> i don't see a reason for it. it is certainly not needed for target shooting. i think general mcchrystal, stanley mcchrystal said it best, these are weapons of war, and they simply have no need to exist in the civilized society. it doesn't mean we're going to eliminate them anytime soon. i think most of the legislation that we're talking about is going to grandfather them in, even if that legislation goes forward, but in terms of need, no, i see no need. these are weapons that are made to kill other people, to kill large numbers of people in a very short period of time, and it's not logical as far as i'm concerned. >> i read a very disturbing report today. the fbi came out and said that there were more background checks, official ones, made for guns in december, following sandy hook, than in any month in america since 1998. so there are more guns being purchased in december than in

any month since 1998. and that just increases exponentially the sheer volume of weaponry on the street and it's driven by fear from the gun rights lobbyists, nra and others, that if anyone had been armed at sandy hook, at the school, they would have dealt with the shooter. how do you try to deal with that mentality in a reasonable way that doesn't offend gun owners but actually works to reduce the total volume of guns rather than dramatically increase it? >> the second amendment is here to stay. people have a right to arm, have a right to handguns, within some reasonable regulation. i think you have to make people aware of the fact that, you know, confiscation is not going to happen. the notion that if you arm a lot of people, that somehow it would deter crime or deter these attacks, always incumbent on

that approach, we have people who have received an awful lot of training under a stressful situation to expect them to take a handgun out or any sort of weapon out and fire it and do so accurately is just a -- it's a pipe dream. and i just don't see the answer being in expanding the universe of weapons and having more people with guns at schools. >> final question, commissioner. as we see particularly in chicago, a lot of the guns that are found, i believe this applies in new york, but guns are brought in from other states. so you can have pretty tough gun control law, if you like, in new york and chicago, as everyone knows they have, but actually it can often be superfluous to a criminal who can get in a car and go to a neighboring state with much more lax gun control laws. can any of these laws from a law

enforcement perspective, can any of them be properly effective if they're not federal laws. >> 90% of the guns in new york city are coming from out of state. we call it the iron pipeline up i-95, coming from southern states to a great extent. there's a trial going on now, a police officer who was shot and killed last year. his gun was purchased in virginia, and it's typical of the guns that we encounter on the street. so you're correct. unless we have a comprehensive national strategy, we're going to have a patchwork approach. new york, certainly now, has the strongest gun control laws in the country, and that's a good thing, but unless other states start to adopt that, we're still going to be plagued by the flow of guns. just a reality of urban life. >> and to politicians out there who are feeling that although their conscience may dictate

that they agree with new gun control laws, their political aspirations may be too damaged by the gun lobbyists, nra and others, in terms of being able to win their seats or to retain their seats. what do you say to them, as somebody who yourself has shown a lot of courage, i believe, in running the police force of your city? is it time for more politicians to show a bit of backbone and a bit of personal courage over this rather than worrying about their political futures? >> yeah, i don't think it's too much to ask our elected officials to vote your conscience. that's why we put them in office. the fact is whether or not you're going to be re-elected, we understand it's a human reaction, but we would like to think that sometimes people are going to just do the right thing. and i certainly believe that's what has to happen here. there's still way too much

bloodshed, and quite frankly, these are for the most part in most cities, young men, young men of color, who their lives are being wasted for sometimes the silliest of reasons. yeah, we need those politicians to stand up and do the right thing. >> commissioner kelly, thank you very much indeed. >> thank you, piers. >> coming up, a different perspective on guns in america. the mayor of a small town that depends on a gun factory to survive.

with officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option. you can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back, but are you prepared? consider taking a certified safety course in handling firearms so you can defend yourself until we get there. we're partners now. can i depend on you? >> that's the sheriff of milwaukee, telling residents to learn to defend themselves with a gun. is that really the answer? joining me is a former gun advocate who says it is time for gun control, and the mayor of a city where a remington gun factory employs many of the town's residents.

welcome to you both. let me start with you mayor. you heard from ray kelly, the commissioner of new york, very, very strong there about the answer to the gun epidemic in america is not to have more guns out there. he wants an assault weapons ban, heavy restrictions on handguns, including background checks, et cetera, et cetera. what is your reaction to that because you're in a place not far from new york where remington has a big factory and they make a lot of money for that area? >> my reaction to that is we need to slow down the entire process. we need to step back. we need to think about things. we can't have this knee jerk reaction that's been going on. from my perspective, as the chief executive officer of the village of illion which houses remington arms for almost the

past 200 years, my concern is keeping that alive and the job retention and economic development of remington within the village of illion, new york. >> here is the thing about the debate. when i heard the sheriff out of milwaukee, i didn't hear myself furiously disagreeing with him. i never disagree with an american's right to own a handgun or pistol to defend themselves. but my issue is there's not enough background checks. it's ridiculous that 40% of gun shows have no background checks, and i also see no weapon to have assault weapons in civilian hands. it's a very different premise than the one the gun rights lobbyists seem to frame you in, as anti-gun, because that's not an accurate depiction. how does this move forward?

you got an a-rating from the nra, so you have said the right things in their point of view. how do we get this to the place where real action can be done, we have a real effect on curbing gun violence. >> that's the $64 million question. what happens in washington on immigration, guns, is everyone wants 100%. the things you outlined with the exception of the assault weapons ban that i'll be happy to talk about later, but the gun show loophole is substantial because if you look at the mass shootings that have occurred, almost all of them except for one recently was committed by a young white man, late teens, early 20s, who had untreated mental illness. and you get to that problem two ways. one, the sheriff from iowa did a great job of explaining, most county jails today have more mental health patients, but

they're not dealing with mental health. they're just ware housing them. and 40% of guns purchased at gun shows with no background check is not easy, but it's one way to make sure that guns aren't winding up in the hands of people that the law says shouldn't have them already. >> these things seem to me to be absolutely obvious. and i can't understand why they're not already in place, and i assume they will get some of those. in terms of the assault weapons ban, i'm surprised at the number of people, the problem is the number of guns in circulation is increasing at a dramatic rate. the fbi had background checks in december following sandy hook, and the reason i'm afraid is the nra and other gun lobby groups who are supported by the gun industry go out, they raise fear, they say that everybody needs to have a gun, so people go and buy guns, and the only

people who really win there are the gun manufacturers who make guns and ammunition, who just record record profits. and that cannot be right for any civilized society. >> no, but here's the deal. there's 300 million guns in circulation roughly in the united states, about 300 million people, so everybody has a gun. when you talk about bans and stopping this and stopping that, it really is a drop in the bucket. there's 3.5 million of these assault weapons out there and three or four have been used to commit horrible crimes. even if you said tomorrow you're not going to be able to purchase these weapons and put the people of illion out of work or whatever, you're not solving the problem. >> but don't you have to start somewhere? >> i don't accept that. >> really? >> i don't accept that you need to start some place. you need to start some place if you're going to make a difference, but to start some place to start some place is foolish. what happens is, and this is what i'm talking about with overreach.

there are things that can be accomplished in a bipartisan way that can make a real difference in gun violence in the united states of america, but one side or the other will dig in their heels. draw a line in the sand, and won't get to the common ground. if you could deal with mental health and the gun show loophole, get it out of here, and then fight about the next stuff next year, you would be accomplishing more than an assault weapons ban that wouldn't have one spit of difference in violence in america because 3.5 million are still out there, and you would never get it passed. people like to say it's the gun lobbyists and republicans. harry reid, the democratic leader in the senate has indicated that the ban wouldn't make it to the floor in the senate because he has five democratic senators from red states that can't afford to address the assault weapon ban with an election coming. >> look, whether you say that, and i don't dispute that for a second, i just think those five that you're talking about are showing utter political and

moral cowardice, as ray kelly said. it's time for them to stand up and vote on their conscience, not on political expediency, isn't it? >> that's supposing their conscious tells them that's the right thing to do. >> i agree with that. the way you phrased it yourself, you and both believe that probably what is underpinning that situation is a political fear that they will be driven out of their seats. >> a political fear, and that's what their constituents want them to do. that's the second half of the equation that the commissioner left out. you may have a conscience, but if the people that you represent don't want you to do something, you're really not their representative, are you? but the second amendment -- >> i don't agree with that. i actually don't agree with that. i think real political leadership is sometimes telling the people who have elected you things they may not necessarily feel comfortable hearing. that's my problem with this whole debate, is i think there are far too many politicians who agree with what you just said. let me turn to you, if i may, mayor stephens.

do you agree with this? do you agree that the answer to gun violence is categorically not to reduce the volume of guns in circulation? >> yes, i do agree. since the federal assault weapons ban was expired in 2004, the national crime rate actually decreased by 17%. it's now at the lowest levels since the early '70s. so i don't think that the increase in weapons production has had any effect on increasing violent crime. >> and yet you're aware that obviously every country that has brought in tough gun control almost without exception from around the world from japan to australia to britain has seen dramatic reductions in the amount of gun murders and gun-related crimes? >> right, but if you look at the

united states isn't even in the top ten of leaders in the category of violent crimes, piers. >> okay. well, mayor stephens and steven, thank you both very much. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. >> a lot of people were surprised to hear the president skeet shoots at camp david. when we come back, we're going to talk about that and more with a couple of my favorite panelists. we'll get pretty lively.

law enforcement officials who are dealing with this stuff every single day can come to some basic consensus in terms of steps we need to take, congress is going to be paying attention to them and we'll be able to make progress. >> president obama today at the white house meeting on guns. we'll talk about that with dana, also bringing back steven, you were about to make a point about the second amendment. and in the interest of fair play, i would like you to make that point. >> thank you. the second amendment can be interpreted by the supreme court recently and in a washington, d.c. case and in a case in

chicago, you can't frame the argue, why do you need that gun? that's the not the issue. the issue is the second amendment says you're entitled to have that gun, and you can put reasonable restrictions on that. this is a political problem we're facing. people can take extreme views on this issue and get nothing done, or you can say how can we come together and close the gun show loophole -- >> i get that point. i don't disagree with that second point you made. but on the question of the second amendment, i talked to newt gingrich the other day, do you agree or disagree on the ban on machine guns, automatic machine guns? >> that's a reasonable restriction. that's what i'm saying. >> but my question is, since the founder fathers never specified obviously the type of gun because they couldn't have done, they wouldn't have been able to foresee them, my question to you is what is the substantive difference between the effect of a banned machine gun that you and i both agree should be banned under the second amendment, what is the

difference between that and what it can do to a classroom full of children and an ar-15 loaded with a 100-bullet magazine. to me, there's no difference, and i don't understand why you're comfortable with banning one and not the other? >> it's not a question of what i'm comfortable with. the founding fathers didn't foresee texting while driving either, but that's not how we measure things. the second amendment says you're allowed to have a gun. what you have to say then is what can we do in the political framework, the fractures political framework where the democrats control the house, the republicans control the senate. >> i get that. >> that's what this is about. >> i get that except that i think it should also include an assault weapons ban. i'm interested in exploring the debate on both sides about that. >> charles, this contradiction i can't quite work out in my head with the pro gun lobby.

i call them that even though i'm anti-all gun, but what is the difference between agreeing that under the second amendment you can't own a machine gun because it causes mass carnage in a few seconds, but you can apparently as a right have an ar-15 with a 100-bullet magazine. can you explain to me the argument, the logic that differentiates the two? >> you can't ask me to explain the logic of this because i don't quite understand the logic of those. i do believe that we can start by saying that high-capacity magazines are probably not things we should have in civilian hands. i think that we can say that weapons like these assault weapons or assault rifles, both, but i think also some assault handguns can be placed out of

bounds of ordinary citizens, and i think that's okay and still within the second amendment and does not violate the spirit of that amendment. >> okay, dana, i spoke to ray kelly off camera at the end of that. i knew you and i had talked about this before. explain to me the difference in an ar-15 in reality and some of the more high powers guns. he said, if you get a 30-bullet magazine clipped to a high powered handgun, it can obviously fire at a rapid rate and everyone can see that. the difference with an ar-15 is the way you hold it and load the magazine makes it a much easier weapon to commit mass slaughter with and a much faster one to commit it. he said there is a substantive difference. i ask you the same question i asked others. which is what is the difference in terms of the argument you're putting forward to me about your resistance to ban an ar-15 style weapon, what is the difference between the kind of carnage it can cause in a school, and a machine gun, an automatic rifle,

which is already banned in most places. what is the difference? >> the ar-15 is semiautomatic, the machine gun is automatic. one has select fire capabilities. the other, you pull the trigger one and you get one bullet. >> that wasn't my question. my question was in terms -- >> i explained the difference. you asked what the difference was. >> i know the technical difference. i am asking about the effect, if a man like james holmes walks into a movie theater armed with what he had, a 100-bullet magazine and an ar-15 and begins to unload, what is the difference in the carnage that he can cause in a minute compared to a machine gun? now, the only answer is a few more dead, right? because he still managed to hit 70 people. >> well, we had the virginia tech shooting done with handguns and i have not heard the term assault handgun before, but in

virginia tech that was the single deadliest shooting in the history of the country and it was done with handguns burk if you are trying to equate ar-15 with machine guns, they are different. the ar-15 is a different gun than the machine gun, i wanted to show you that this is a smaller size and this is from the gas station and this is a lighter and there it goes. it is not going the work, but the difference of a fully automatic, and the m6 military style, and imagine this is me holding the trigger and the rounds keep coming, but with the semiautomatic, you have to with one pull, one bullet each time. and you are conflating these terms though, and i want to make another point on this side of the 40% background number, that is a bunk number. you are citing a people done of 250 people before the brady act and before the clinton administration. i just wanted to correct that.

>> dana, stop talking. but on that particular point i know technically the difference of the m-16 and the ar-15 and i know that, because my brother uses the m-16 in the army. the point is the difference of the carnage they can cause in one minute to a school. i don't see much money, and that is why i am bemused that one of them is entitled under your rights and the other, you are perfectly happy not to be under your rights. let's take a break and come back and discuss it further, because it is a lively debate. oh! oh! ♪ what do you know? oh! ♪ bacon? -oh! -oh! oh! [ female announcer ] with 40 delicious progresso soups at 100 calories or less, there are plenty of reasons people are saying "progress-oh!" share your story for a chance to win a progress-oh! makeover in hollywood. go to facebook.com/progresso to enter.

and his new boss told him two things -- cook what you love, and save your money. joe doesn't know it yet, but he'll work his way up from busser to waiter to chef before opening a restaurant specializing in fish and game from the great northwest. he'll start investing early, he'll find some good people to help guide him, and he'll set money aside from his first day of work to his last, which isn't rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade.

back now with dana lash, host of the dana show, and new york columnist and cnn contributor, charles. and you have said that you had nothing, but now that you have time to think about it, what would you personally do to authorize washington politicians to do to curb gun violence in america? >> to curb gun violence in america, stop disarming law abiding citizens. that is the first thing i would do. >> other than, other than not removing any guns, what would you do to stop the fact that 18,000 americans kill themselves with guns every year, 12,000 murder with guns every year and --

>> well, piers, that is a fraction of people with firearms. you can't loop, and you can't just lump law abiding gun owners in with criminals. that is offensive. especially considering how many firearms were sold december 2012. >> what would you authorize politicians to do to reduce gun violence. >> well, first and foremost, i would stop regulations to stop law abiding citizens to arm themselves. that is one of the most important things. because when conceal and carry is implemented for instance like florida and missouri, the crime goes down and that is a huge thing, piers. >> dana! other than keeping agains in other people's hand, and i have your point on that, what would you proactively do to reduce gun violence? >> tougher penalties for people who kill people with illegally obtained fire arms. did that answer the question?

>> charles -- >> i answered it. >> i am asking charles. the president came out with all of the plans and the initiatives, but many republicans and many gun's rights people simply don't agree with any of them and they don't believe there should be background checks. >> first of all, we should make clear that none of the suggestions are proposals to disarm any law abiding gun owners. none of them. the government has not said that they want to do that and they are not doing that. the second thing is that the nra is basically a no regulation organization. they don't want any new regulations of any sort. and none of the gun, i don't call them gun rights groups, but gun proliferation groups, because that is the business they are in, to make sure that there are more guns produced,

sold and in public hands. and i think that, that pushing in that direction is actual think wrong direction for us to go, because they will not only -- there will be people who most people who buy a gun will use it responsibly. but the more guns that are out there, the more likely guns will be able to fall into the hands of the criminals, and that becomes the problem. >> okay. well, the debate will carry on and i will have you back soon. dana loeshe and charles blow. thank you both very much. everyone tells a little white lie now and then. but now she wants my recipe [ clears his throat ] [ softly ] she's right behind me isn't she? [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup.

try capzasin-hp. it penetrates deep to block pain signals for hours of relief. capzasin-hp. take the pain out of arthritis.